Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19951025ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25, 1995 706 123 W. 820 E. 500 WEST BLEEKER .......... 3 W. MAIN - FINAL APPROVAL ....... 5 FRANCIS CD - PUBLIC HEARING ..... 9 COOPER - REQUEST OR RECONSIDERATION 15 WORKSESSION - ORDINANCE #30 ....... 16 17 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25, 1995 Meeting was called to order by chairman Donnelley Erdman with Les Holst, Roger Moyer, Martha Ma~sen, Susan Dodington, Linda Smisek and Roger Moyer present. Excused were Jake Vickery, Melanie Roschko and Sven Alstrom. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the minutes of Aug. 23, 1995; September 13, 1995 and September 27, 1995; second by Les. Ail in favor, motion carries. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Amy: Regarding EIS there will be a meeting Nov. 15th where there will be a formal detailed presentation of the realities of alternative H. I believe the end of the comment period is around XMAS time. Les: After we see alternative H we need a worksession to evaluate all the alternatives. I got everything from the trolley people and a tape. Donnelley: Four and a half years ago we approved the tennis townhomes at the Aspen Meadows and Savannah was the developer of that and they have plans in for approval but the elevations on the Meadows Road side are significantly different than what we approved. They have switched architects, Finholm was the original for the tennis townhome and the renovation of the trustee townhomes and Savannah gave the contract document phase to Striker/Brown. In the process there was not enough communication about what was approved and what was not. When we approved May 8, 1991 the plans for the development of the tennis townhomes opposite the tennis courts. Amy: How did you find out this was happening? Donnelley: They are listed for sale and they are in the building department and I happened to see the drawings. Amy: Those reviews were mandatory and I pulled the plans this afternoon and what I can tell is that HPC never saw those plans in 1994 as they were not highlighted and never went past me. I can see that the elevations don't match. Donnelley: It may be solved by Staff and monitor. Martha: Was that at the time when Fred Smith presented? Donnelley: No this was when D~ve Finholm presented. Les: On 801 E. Hyman Amy stated that they want to take away any single story aspect of it. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25, 1995 Amy: What was discussed at the site is that they would like to remove that one story form tha~ was to represent the house that used to be there and instead~the porch all the way around the house. They are free to bring that drawing in. I knew from reading the minutes that it was an essential part of the design to have that. Les: I stand to say no unless it is wonderful. Linda: Stan had his original plans from 1987 at the site and he was showing us what he wanted to do and it is a user unfriendly place because it is screaming with trucks and construction. That house that Amy signed off on across the street they are livid about that and there is dirt in the street and it is a filthy mess. Amy: I signed off on it? Linda: Well that was the statement at the site. Amy: I feel the Kraut project is a good affordable housing project. Linda: The tree that was there laid there all summer long and no one had any idea of what was going on and it is dead now. Les: Unless they bring in something that is considerably a better asset for the community I do not feel they should get approval. Linda: They will bring a plan in. Amy: I will supply the minutes. Roger: With regard to Jeff that resigned, first of all it is very hard to get good people and secondly if Jeff was encouraged to stay on the boars and that the time he is in Korea we fax him what is going on so he is aware and when he is in town he could remain on HPC. Some of us have looked at the slides from the Federal people and that should be ongoing. At some point we should go around town again and look at how to deal with lightwells. Possibly we need two worksessions to have an overall philosophy of what we are trying to do. We all need to operate with the same terminology and provide members with the educational materials needed. Amy: We have a number of qualified people who have applied to the Board. We need to call a special HPC regarding training sessions etc. because our agendas are full and we need to figure that out. We need to discuss our design guideline book that was done in 1987. I just went through them for a major revision for a grant. Donnelley: I also feel it is important that we all understand the ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25, 1995 language of a residential structure and that is approximately 50 words. Amy: As far as publications I have them all in my office. city subscribes to numerous magazines. The Roger: I find the blend of mass and scale at Seaside is extremely interesting but what is more fascinating is that when the hurricane came through two communities were leveled because of total disregard of any real type congtruction that would resist natural disasters. 500 WEST BLEEKER Donnelley: We site visited this today. Amy: Casey Clark is representing a 7 foot high wood fence and then it will drop in areas down to 6 feet and then pick up again. We would need a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment to allow them to go to seven feet. The historic house has been raised to have a higher floor level and the exact opposite is happening to the building next door. Roger: One of the issues we deal with is not to look at a long wall when we walk up. The new house to the left was not reviewed. The fence does not have to be continuous and could be split so you are not creating a solid barrier between the two. Donnelley: Side yard fences are very typical in the west end and they do not stagger back and forth. I would rather see a fence that has some use as they might have an animal to keep in there. All fences in the west end are. continuous. Amy: And that is what she tried to do by stepping it down. Les: What about coming down at an angle. Donnelley; You could do an average of six feet but no greater than seven feet so that the fence would have to average out to six feet. Martha: We do not have seven foot fences. Amy: That is why they have to go to Board of Adjustment. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the privacy fence at 500 W. Bleeker on the west side between the existing historic property and the new structure to the west with the following conditions: 1) The south end of the fence will be no further to the street ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25, 199~ than the wall of the front porch of the existing victorian. 2) That the north end of the fence will be no longer than the rear corner board of the.new house to the west and that no portion of the fence can exceed seven feet and that the average height will be six feet. Roger: The reason is so that the fence will step down in the center where there is no need for the full seven foot height. 3) The recommendation to the Board of Adjustment is to please allow the privacy fence to be installed as outlined by HPC for the following reasons: The historic house years ago was raised therefore the need for the extra foot on the fence is that it is higher than the newer house next door and that there is a true privacy problem from window to window. We find by allowing this it is not taking away any view plane by the neighbor or disrupting any solar loss or gain. Motion second by Susan. DISCUSSION Susan: What about the spruce tree that was to be added. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended his motion to add: 4) That a new blue spruce tree be planted at the junction between the existing wrought iron fence and the new wooden fence on the south end and that the tree to be at least six feet in height. Second by Susan. DISCUSSION Donnelley: I believe we should not define the to the north because that has a lot to do with and development of the back rear of the alley. limit of the fence the ultimate plan AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended his motion that the north end of the fence can be extended further toward the alley at the discretion of the applicant. This amends #2. Second by Susan. Amy: They are dropping it to six feet at some points and I feel we might be making this too complicated. Donnelley: It may help with the Board of Adjustment that the average height of the fence is, six feet and parts are seven. Martha: I feel this is too complicated for the applicant. It ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25, 1995 needs worded so that it is simplistic. Amy: The applicant originally wanted to ask for an eight foot fence the whole way across. We can suggest adding inflection. Donnelley: How about stating maximum height of seven feet where necessary and the rest six feet or less. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended his motion stating that the maximum height of the fence seven feet where necessary and the remaining fence to be six feet or less; second by Susan. Ail in favor of motion and amended motions. 706 W. MAIN - FINAL APPROVAL Amy: There was one extension given to conceptual recently and at that hearing the committee members made comments for restudy and what it mostly focused on wa% the flat roof section of the new addition and a change has been made and there is now a gabled roof in that area. Jake brought up the point that he would like to see more character at the alley. I am recommending approval as submitted. We will need more indications of material but that could be worked out with Staff and monitor. Donnelley; It is nice to have the 1/4 scale drawings. Joe Krabacher, owner: I myself liked the flat roof. David Panico: The intent of the original was to have the building understated. We dressed up the rear and created a pitched roof that runs the length of the flat roof area. There was an issue at the last meeting about the location of the windows on the upper floor and that is a function of the interior floor plan. There were some statements that indicated that you wanted some more play in that and I have always thought that especially on the rear in the back of this building the more understated the better you are. The materials will be an asphalt roof in keeping what is presently on the cottage and the dimension of the clapboard size on the lower level banding will be in keeping as to what is happening on the cottage. Roger: Why would you keep the same size siding on the new as on the historic building. David Panico: To carry portions of the element through and tieing the two together. Roger: What is the fence going to be made out of? David: Metal. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25, 1995 CLARIFICATION Amy: Regarding the historic house what is original in terms of siding and windows? Joe Krabacher: The front porch element is not original. The siding is aluminum siding and underneath is asphalt siding and under the asphalt siding is clapboard. We haven't pulled off big sections but when we changed the door you could see underneath. David Panico: Joe went through the lower section to see what was there. Joe Krabacher: My plan is to restore the original clapboard siding. Roger: Is the original clapboard siding painted? Joe: Yes. The roof is new but there are beams inside that are old. The window on the east L is an original window and we will keep it in there even though it doesn't work. The front door is not original. Amy: Has a structural engineer looked at it. Joe: I think so. Amy: Since you are moving the house forward as a condition of conceptual you will need to provide a replacement plan and relocation plan while excavating and we need to set a bond. Donnelley: On the E, W and N elevations all the new work has fenestration that is two over'one and then you get to the south which is the street L the fenestration is two over two which is the same as the historic resource. The band of four windows. Why do those windows look like the historic resource as I feel we should try and make the new work different. Joe Krabacher: I agree and it should be two over one for a slightly different treatment. David Panico: Those windows were to be casement. Chairman Donnelley Erdman opened the public hearing. from the public. Chairman Donnelley Erdman closed hearing. No comments the public Roger: On the west end which is now a door will you replace the door with the historical window? ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25, 1995 Joe Krabacher: I feel that window is in the basement and that is what we would do. We want to fix the windows and make them work. Roger: When you take everything off the historic house will you use as much as that as possible even though it is beat up? Joe Krabacher: character. Of course, I like it like that frankly. It adds Amy: If the siding must be replaced would we really want to have it the same exposure to weather as the new building since then it has no real distinction? Donnelley: On the older buildings there is less to weather because that is the way it was done and now people tend the clapboard to weather as you don't have to use as much material. When we make our recommendations for approval that if there is not a significant distinction in terms of texture and age of the existing material because it all can be used then you might increase the amount to weather on the new work. Joe Krabacher: What is the purpose of that? Donnelley: Just to differentiate the corner between old and new. That increase might be 1/2 inch. Martha: Basically we are here to approve materials. Donnelley: And the roof form on the alley, materials, fenestration, bonding and a affidavit that the building is structurally sound. Chairman Donnelley Erdman entertained a motion. MOTION: Les moved grant final approval for redevelopment of the site of 706 W. Main with final conditions: 1) Upper south windows to be changed to not copy the windows of the cottage. 2) The salvageable siding on the historic structure to be determined by owner and monitor. Siding on the old not to be replicated on the new structure. 3) That a bond for $15,000 be provided with information on the movement of the old resource. 4) Historic windows to be retained and if possible the door on the west side be replaced with the original window, the 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25, 1995 window that is stored. Second by Roger. DISCUSSION Amy: If the original siding on the cottage can be salvaged then the new building can match that exposure. It is only if that siding cannot be salvaged and it has to be replaced that the two buildings have to have a different kind of exposure. Donnelley: If all the old siding is salvageable you will notice upon inspection that one is definitely old and the other is new and smoother. Les: I feel the monitor and owner can solve this. Roger: I always thought we wanted to show the new from the old so why have the same dimensions. Amy: If one is old materials it is clear that one is different. David Panico: I feel carrying that one element from the old to the new gives some continuity of the buildings. Donnelley: Another thing we never discuss is the painting and I have always favored having slightly different shades between the old and new and it is never done. Roger: I have brought that up in the past. In the Elli's building it was painted blue and then a lighter blue for the historic and then all of a sudden they came back and it was all the same color. We didn't put that in the approval. Amy: If the first owner is willing to do a slight color change as we do not want the building in the back to look like an addition. It would be nice if they looked different. Les: I see this house as a growing living organism and feel there will be excitement when we pull off all that old stuff and see what is there. Roger: On the Crocket house untouched. They put a clear charming things around. they left the historic house almost sealer on it and it one of the most Joe Krabacher: To clarify, the bond and relocation permit should accompany the building permit. Amy: Ideally before you submit the building permit I should receive it so you won't be held up. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25, 1995 VOTE: Ail in favor, motion carries. Les is the monitor. Donnelley: What is the construction schedule? Joe Krabacher: About two years. Amy: You have vested rights by default three years if you want to come in and rights it is a public hearing.. for a year and a half and ask for it. To do vested Joe Krabacher: I need to do that and it goes from today. 123 W. FRANCIS CD - PUBLIC HEARING Amy: We approved this project in May conceptually and it was to relocate the existing house on the lot and then build a new structure next to it and at that time we granted several variances because for such a large parcel there were very large side yard setbacks required but this proposal involves two small buildings and in order to fit them on the lot you can't meet those setbacks so we approved that previously. Amy: Since then the owner has found a potential buyer and that buyer is interested in flip flopping the plan you approved. We approved moving the historic house to the east and building the new house to the west. They want to switch those and there are a lot of advantages to it actually because then you have two historic resources, two one story buildings next to each other. Then you have the new structure and the next door parcel is not historic. We are here to readjust the variances in order for this to happen. I have listed the new variances. Amy: The next issue is the tree. There are three large trees on the parcel two of them are up near the city right-of-way and one is within the parcel. That one is the smallest of the three and we have had several discussions about it. Originally the motion said that the tree cannot be relocated. Then the applicant came back and said can you reconsider that a little as it blocks the facade of the new house and it is within the building envelope and not working so the approval was granted to move it to the rear of the parcel. Now what is being asked is your approval to take it off the property. The Red Brick School is interested in having the tree and will put it on the street scape. By putting this at the back of the lot it isn't doing much for the streetscape anymore and it is a very big tree and we have small yards for these buildings so the applicant is asking for that. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25, 1995 Amy: Before, the old house was on a 3,000 sqft. lot and you put a condition on that no fence could be built between the two houses as the old house was only two feet from the lot line and you said no fence. I am going to explain why that situation has changed and they would like that condition'taken away. We discussed before an historic lot split. This is a 10,000 sqft. parcel and you are allowed by right to build two detached buildings on it. Those buildings could be owned by the same person or condominiumized. Jake has brought forward a text amendment which will allow an actual lot split. This is not typically allowed and two separate owners can own this property. We need to give formal approval for a lot split of the property and it makes no difference to HPC as we will still see visually the same thing. The houses are now both on 5,250 sqft. instead of a small lot and a large lot. There is a lot more room for each of the houses and I do not feel the fence is necessary anymore. This may be a policy discussion: Partial demolition and relocation approvals are generally a one step review and it is not a public hearing. Because of all the other aspects of the project and the fact that it was conceptual everything is grouped together and rides with the entire project. In order to allow the sale to go through on the property Jake would like to relocate and do the demolition on the house now. It is difficult for a new owner to get financing for a property that has a house half sitting on it. You have already given the approval for partial demolition and relocation and I do not see any reason why we would change our minds about that. I am asking for you to do that now even though we have nQt gone through final approval. Martha: This plan makes more sense to me. Linda: I also agree that it makes more sense. Roger: Suppose this sale doesn't go through, does this plan remain the plan or is he allowed to go back to the previous plan and work that out? Amy: They would like to keep an option A and an option B. We already approved the others so there is no reason to change our minds and this one is even better. Roger: This is a better plan. Suppose we approve this and the deal doesn't go through and they go back to Option A do we still allow the tree to be moved? Amy: Either way it doesn't change the situation. In either case you will have two lots of 5,250 sqft. and in the applicants mind the tree will be a burden on the property in either way. Roger: Is there any problem with the tree being moved? 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25, 1995 Amy: They will require a tree removal relocation permit with the Parks Dept. and they will have to post a bond. If the tree does not survive they will have to replace it with a equivalent. Roger: If that tree is dug up and removed what is the impact to the two larger trees. Greg Prickrell: With equally divided lot splits and when you look at the size of the tree and how you are going to fit that on it is difficult to fit in. We figured with the life of the tree it would be better utilized in a public space and we have gotten consent to move that tree to the south west corner of the gym of the Red Brick School House. It will be public facing right on the street. They are happy to have it. It will cost about $2,000 to move it. We could pay $685. to move it; however, if the tree dies we will pay for the replacement of the tree which is $4,900. We are taking extra precautions to dig up the root ball which is around 20,000 lbd. and wrapping it with chicken wire and securing it. Donnelley: If it is accurately represented you can see it is crowded by the other trees. Susan: If he moves these things now and the partial demolition and the deal falls through what happens then if it is already partially demolished? Amy: There lies why we usually keep everything together. Martha: He would have to find another buyer the way it sits. Susan: It seems that we are jumping the gun by letting him do it right away without finalization. Martha: I do not have a problem approving this plan and the next buyer would have this plan. Amy: A new buyer cannot get financing to make a offer when there is a house sitting on part of the parcel. Donnelley: What we are talking about is not allowing the option to retreat back to the previous approval if this house is moved and we approve the lot split approach of 5,250 sqft. then we are saying you cannot retreat to the other option so we could allow Jake to move the house onto the one lot. We do not want to leave the other option open. Roger: You need to leave in order to see if he can house and the deal falls house back. it open right now because he needs this close the deal. Lets say he moves the how is he going to afford to move the 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25, 1995 Donnelley: He has already been granted all of the legal means to have two lots. Greg: We want the flexibility of either scheme as it opens it up to a broader market. Amy: Before you move the house you are going to'have to know who is buying it because that determines which direction the house is going. If we can make some sort of finding so that the bank is confident enough that this encroachment is being removed. That is difficult. Linda: We are putting the cart before the horse and we are not here for developers. Roger: You could approve this as written with the condition that once the house is moved the applicant cannot move the house back without the consent of HPC. Les: The best scheme is that he moves the house to the right, the tree gets removed and he moves the house onsite and does the foundation. Susan: We are approving the demolition and plan as submitted. Greg: Jake is close on this contract but wants the flexibility of moving the house, scheme A and B. Amy: I feel the problem is resolving the partial demolition/relocation with the concern if this entire thing fell apart and Jake went away and this property didn't end up being an historic landmark even we may.not be very happy having the house where he is suggesting moving it. Les: Is he going to move this if he doesn't have a contract. Roger: You won't move the house yet until the deal is done? Greg: Yes, that is correct. Donnelley: For financing you are required to have a survey made etc. and then the house is moved after the survey is completed. Between the time the lot goes under contract and it is closed Jake is at risk. Roger: In regards to the demolition and moving of the house it is to be worked out with Staff and City Attorney. Amy: To protect ourselves we should say the house goes back to 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25, 1995 where it was. Linda: Maybe someone would do one house in there. left where it is until the deal is done. It should be Martha: He doesn't need any variances for this new deal. Amy: He is going to have to have a bond to relocate the house. We could say that the bond has to cover if the deal falls apart the house will be put back. Les: What makes sense is that you build a foundation and move it and set it on the foundation. At that point we don't care what happens. There is a lot split and all we need is historic preservation review over the new building that is going to go on the adjacent lot. Greg: The house is in the middle of the two lots. Donnelley: there. Once the house is moved to either lot that it remain Linda: Not move it at all until the contract is signed. Donnelley: No, we don't care about that. That is the risk of the owner. Chairman Donnelley Erdman opened the public hearing. Amy: I got a phone message from Phil and Sue West who live adjacent to George Vicenzi and they had just received the public notice yesterday as it had the wrong zip code on it. They have not seen the plans so I feel they do not understand the project at all. They have asked me to express that they feel the variances should not be granted and that the applicant should work with the rules. I have tried to contact them again. Susan: If we approve this are we approving the original plan that Jake had for his house as there were several things that were not finalized. Amy: We have already approved that with conditions. Chairman Donnelley Erdman closed the public hearing. Amy: There were two small additional points that need to be covered. One of which is that in the variances there is a request for a lightwell. The other is-that each house is required to have one space for bedroom in this plan and there were nine spaces required for this project and we waived five of them so that left 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25, 1995 two spaces per unit. Jake went to P&Z to have his ADU units reviewed and although they almost never require for an ADU they required one for him because they thought that there was a lot of density on the site and were concerned where people would park their cars. On one of the sites there needs to be three spaces. Greg: We will have to put the additional space as an offset beside the garage. Amy: The other solution is for us to say we will waive one more space so that they would only have to have one space for the ADU and one for the residence. My concern is that there is limited open space on the site and they want to turn it onto paved surface. Grasscrete can be used. Donnelley: There is some validity of trying to get the cars off the street. Roger: You could have pavers with lawn in between. To satisfy the requirement of P&Z it was put in that manner. Donnelley: Do you all agree about the applicant providing the space but having it primarily grass. 4-2 to provide the space. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC allow the applicant at 123 W. Francis to: 1) Allow locations of the structure to be as shown on either revised site plan Option A or B. 2) To grant the following setbacks to the property: Under "Option A & B" as represented to HPC if the lot split is approved: A height variance to allow 16' to the 1/3 point of the roof of the ADU unit on the new house. A rear yard setback variance of 5' if the applicant elects to keep the existing shed. An east interior) sideyard setback variance of 5' for the shed A 4' variance on the west sideyard for a lightwell Under "Options A and B" as represented to HPC if the lot split is not approved: 10' on the east and west sideyards 26' on the combined sideyards 5' rear yard variance for a balcony on the new house 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25, 1995 13' combined front and rear yard on the old house 4' west sideyard variance for a lightwell 3. Allow the tree to be relocated to Parks Dept. requires a bond to ensure or be replaced in kind. the Red Brick School. The that the tree will survive 4. Remove the condition that no fence may be built between the structures. 5. Allow the partial demolition as approved on May 24 and the relocation of the historic structure as shown in either "Option A or B" to proceed immediately. The applicant must submit a relocation and bracing plan and a bond (Staff recommends $10,000) before submitting for building permit. 6. Formally approve the splitting of this landmark parcel into two smaller parcels of 5,250 sqft. ech. Both parcels will be considered historic landmarks and will be subject to HPC review in perpetuity. 7) Once the historic house is moved it remain on its new foundation. Second by Les. Ail in favor, motion carries. 820 E. COOPER - REQUEST OR RECONSIDERATION Amy: This is the little red house over by City Market. The plan that was shown to us showed two light wells and a entry airlock added to the front facade and.they do not exist there now. Your motion included a condition that they be removed. The applicant is asking for either a clarification or reconsideration of that motion. The property owner feels that they need these lightwells and entry airlock. We are always asking people to put space below grade but then we never want to see the lightwells. I am recommending as a policy that you do not reconsider a motion that you made based on a strong finding that those changes were not compatible with the original character of the building until such time as a drawing or option was presented to you where you could say now that the standards are met. We do not have a drawing, all we have is a request from the applicant that there might be some solution considered. Amy: They have the ability to do a plan that you can make a finding on. Greg: We are interested in the investigatory process and we have found lightwells that seem to work for us and we want to be able to pursue that without having the closed door policy. 15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25, 199~ Roger: Do we need a motion or'can you pass this information on to the owner? Amy: You could do that but you really don't have to say anything because you have already made your finding. Susan: These pictures of other houses are quite different, the simple miners cottage. It is also close to the street. Donnelley: These lightwells are also forming other duties such as egress. Roger: I have seen lightwells on the side. Susan: On the side of the house is OK. Greg: We would like to withdraw this and suggest that we come to a worksession. Linda: I feel that is a good idea. Jake: It seems like the discussion here has gone beyond what it should be...are lightwells "bad". We are not prepared to address this. Jake: Someone has to make a motion to reconsider a motion and nobody did that. Donnelley: I feel it is premature to do that. We need to schedule a worksession. WORKSESSION - ORDINANCE #30 MOTION: Donnelley moved to adjourn; second by Roger. Ail in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Worksession ended 8:00 p.m. 16